Farsight Remote Veiwing Jesus and The SETH material

I call it "non-specific target context," which has three levels in my model: pool bandwidth, target genre, and target nature.

I call the information the viewer is to collect "targeted info."

Remote viewing target definition is not merely deciding what the target is to encompass, but equally what it doesn't, as a side effect. Tasking is also the art of specifying just how much of 'the universe' is to be 'removed from attention'.

So, if you know the target is NOT going to be the past, the future, microscopic, space, things without feedback, etc., then you know the target pool bandwidth. That doesn't tell you what the target IS, or any detail about it, and it still leaves an uncountable range of options. But it excludes a big chunk of your universe.

If you know the target's "generic classification" such as "biological," or functional classification such as "industrial," or the target's 'scale', such as "microscopic," then you know the target genre. Again this doesn't tell you what the target IS, and still leaves a ridiculously large set of options, but it has greatly trimmed down the portion of universe inside the target box, so to speak.

If you know the target is 'a location' or 'a person', then you know the target's nature. This is the closest to the 'targeted info' one can normally get, but it has its own range of degrees.

'A location' is more generic than "this building in the picture: the cellar: tell me what is happening in that room right now." The latter is close as the 'nature' of something can get without just handing someone SO much "targeted info" the session is pointless. At this point, you've narrowed the focus universe down to a very tiny thing.

This whole category requires a very experienced viewer to be worth doing at all. And, it has completely screwed it for analysis, since the ability to compare viewer data to 'knowns' to get some evalution of the session to weight the unknowns, is impossible then. So what you might get from a good viewer had better be worth several important elements you lose.

**

I believe that there is probably an ideal blend of blinding and non-specific target-context midloading (I say mid-, not front-, because I think starting a session truly doubleblind is far more ideal) for the art. In fact, if you look at comments made even by McMoneagle and Swann and others a dozen years ago or more, even scientists, they said as much.

I think one problem has been that in "the field" of RV -- which is a commercial marketing field dominantly, for doctrine or for cash -- historically there has been such lousy protocol, both intentionally and unintentionally, secretive stuff and so on, that eventually, working things 100% clean double-blind was the only solution. For training people decently and in a way that would properly shape their belief systems. For escaping the whole realm of people rationalizing stuff that makes even a believer's eyes roll up in their head at the ridiculous.

To a great degree, the by-the-book super-clean science-based double-blind had to become the focus particularly for the people most offended by the woo-woo and fraud and cult kind of stuff, because without that -- well, concern for protocol devolves eerily, tragically fast.

But it's caused a bit of a "polarity" of course, any extreme does, for balance.

I think I began the lone ranger about protocol but fortunately haven't been alone on that for years. Yet I don't have any issue with people doing a project and the viewers -- assuming they are experienced viewers -- knowing the target is a person, or an event, or a location, or an idea, or even that it's medical, for example.

I generally have more concern that:
* the tasker is building in their own assumptions and validations to the target definition;
* the tasker is playing multiple roles in a project which can be inappropriate;
* the viewers are not psychologically independent enough to be much more than a channel for whatever the tasker wants to hear to validate their own suspicions;
* the viewers will not stay in the "social protocol" any serious work should use, and will get chatty about it, which tends to have psychology effects and "perceived validation used as unintended feedback" and other problems;
* and a long list of other things which tend to be subtle yet still impactive, are almost never recorded, and hence not only may affect the outcome, but may affect 'how' onlooking viewers interpret things.

Those are the kinds of things I have seen repeatedly -- along with terrible protocol, of course, and profound lack of 'transparency' -- over time.

Non-specific target context given to experienced viewers is a small thing, comparative to all that.

**

Even the most generic, non-specific degree of "target context" provides the human mind some 'framework to hang the data upon', which given the surprisingly limited number of "forms and dynamics" in our universe (viewing is a great back-door into QBL 'correspondences') can be pretty important.

Viewing truly doubleblind tends to be a double-BIND sometimes, unless the viewer's rapport is (a) really powerful and (b) singular. Otherwise, they spend a session getting good data but fighting the temptation to AOL drive, only to discover later it wasn't AOL, and mourn how much different it might have gone if they had been able to 'let go' -- a behavior which a larger % of the time might lead to session disaster. Even the most minor context for the brain, I think has a positive side. I've said in the past that this is something I'd really like to experiment with (using software) -- if I could ever get more time off work...

**

Concerning viewing for projects, whatever protocol the PM chooses is up to them, but I mostly care that protocol be "transparent" when the information is provided, so onlookers can evaluate that as they like. That may include critiquing the protocol, but depending on the details, even imperfect projects can still be educational -- and let's face it, most projects with RV are darn interesting! The problem is, if I don't know or trust the protocol, I just don't validate it period, which is really a bummer, because I want to, I'm interested in this stuff. If I know the protocol (and trust it to be what is represented), then even if I have doubts or bothers about it, at least I'm willing to take the overall effort seriously.

I have been buried in work so I haven't had a chance to go through the Seth project yet. Jane and Seth saved my life and sanity, and I have a lot of appreciation for them, so I'm sure the material will be super interesting to me.

Thanks to Dr. Brown, daz and the other viewers for doing the work and making it public for the field.

Best,
PJ